Toronto 1779-1787 Bayview | 120.42m | 35s | Condor Properties Ltd | Arcadis

Northern Light said:
1667294585791.png
Click to expand...

I am not one to dwell too much on shadowing concerns throughout the city given that we well, live in a city, and most shadowing concerns relate to a slight sliver of shadow that is visible for a few hours at certain points of the year. This time around it seems pretty egregious as demonstrated here, no?

I grew up near this intersection and I can say adamantly that this field is used heavily year-round at most times of the day, and this shadowing will have a demonstrably negative impact on use of adjacent parkspace.
 
WislaHD said:
I am not one to dwell too much on shadowing concerns throughout the city given that we well, live in a city, and most shadowing concerns relate to a slight sliver of shadow that is visible for a few hours at certain points of the year. This time around it seems pretty egregious as demonstrated here, no?

I grew up near this intersection and I can say adamantly that this field is used heavily year-round at most times of the day, and this shadowing will have a demonstrably negative impact on use of adjacent parkspace.
Click to expand...

The shadowing won't affect daytime use for the most part, but would affect evenings, particularly in the shoulder season.

This isn't the profile I would have chosen for the building for that reason.

The shadow in June is less of an issue when its quite warm out.

The shadow in March is less of an issue as the fields won't be in heavy use, if at all, during that time.

The September shadows are what to watch here:

1667398096436.png
'

One wouldn't want to exaggerate the impact here, but at the same time, I would have gone for a slightly different profile to try to mitigate the above a bit more.
 
Last edited:
AlexBozikovic said:
I find the vehemence of the reaction to this building interesting! It’s terrible, clearly. But can folks explain specifically why they hate this one so much?
Click to expand...
For me it's the spandrel laced throughout this tower, the cheap glass that the rendering isnt even trying to hide that the proponents want to go with, and the disaster podium (not the columns which support the building from the station entrance but everything else). Also there's the disgusting retail streetwall which doesn't even attempt to clearly illustrate that there's a retail component to this.

Northern Light said:
I feel the need to bring forward PE's fine thoughts on Twitter, for those lacking previews and the click-averse.

Because, well, PE has a way with words. (and in this case he's entirely correct too!)

View attachment 436520
Click to expand...
Which brings me to the question of why Metrolinx would choose to partner with an inexperienced low-rise developer, to build a high-rise residential build over a station site? This seems like another Metrolinx disaster waiting to happen (and we all know here how much they love getting into messes).
 
AlexBozikovic said:
I find the vehemence of the reaction to this building interesting! It’s terrible, clearly. But can folks explain specifically why they hate this one so much?
Click to expand...
Three main points that lead to this horror.
• as the windows and spandrel panels are divided by waist-height mullions, we are heading for a million-mullion-mess.
• as the solid cladding is entirely spandrels, either back-painted glass or aluminum, there is no masonry for warmth
• this is dingiest colour scheme possible, a two-tone spearmint toothpaste and four-day-old-road-snow lead gray

The massing could be saved if the details were right, if they were fine-grained enough to bring some elegance to the form, as opposed to the emphasis on inelegant, clunky heaviness we see now.

42
 
I'm just curious if the developers and architects behind stuff like this actually think it looks good, like truly believe "yep that's a fine looking building we've designed". Because I just don't know how you could go home at night and not feel absolutely ashamed. Or is the attitude really just, get this building done as cheaply as possible, everything else be damned?

I probably don't need to ask the latter question to be honest, I know the answer.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
I find the vehemence of the reaction to this building interesting! It’s terrible, clearly. But can folks explain specifically why they hate this one so much?
Click to expand...

I think for me the massing is OK (personally, I would push the podium down more, and pop up the height on the tower, which would help with shadows) but not great. It's the complete lack of even trying to appear to try to create something that might contribute to the neighbourhood with this one that gets me. They couldn't even be bothered to try and make the renderings look half decent, which I guess in a sense I appreciate not being bullshitted, but still.
 
I’d also like to see some sort of benefit or acknowledgment for pursuing a high order of design from the City.

To be fair to some developers, there is not really much benefit to doing so. You won’t have that much faster or easier if a process, the vocal members of the community will likely still be pissed and sales prices don’t really reflect the level of design to most degrees.

The matters subject to site plan control will only be further reduced by Bill 23, and IMO the city needs to seize opportunities sometimes and reward good design when it presents itself with a faster commenting and approvals process.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well for starters the city could look into using the money that they currently waste and pour away with IMIT tax breaks, and use that as an incentive to reward good design. Not really sure how you'd write that into existing regulations, or how you would clearly distinguish and detail what is "good design" but there's one idea.
 
Good lord, this is ugly. The concrete poles make me think of the Sheppard entrance to Leslie station, by the underpasses. I'm really glad to see this site can be intensified, but a built form that's more conductive to the greenspace/softball field nearby should be pursued. I'd be happy to see the podium a little shorter and the tower positioned a little differently, but otherwise, this is a bit if a tough site for a substantisl building. The architecture looks like an April Fools joke...make 20 years ago, but I mean, I can't necessarily be surprised.
 
Yikes, what an ugly proposal. Don't give local NIMBYs and The South Bayview Bulldog any ammunition.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top